FEChariot wrote in post #13972224
This is interesting. Both of these lenses are on my short list well sort of. I may go for the Sigma 17-50 instead of the 17-55. What is the Sigma 17-50 not doing for you that you expect the 17-55 to be able to deliver?
Looking at your lens collection, I see a collection that had to be bought on total impulse. It doesn't look to me like you thought about any thing for long term planning. You plan to go full frame yet you bought 4 crop only lenses: 10-20, 17-50, 30, and 60/2.8. You have both a 24-105 and a 24-70. You have both a 17-40 and a 17-50. Do you shoot professionally that you need that redundancy in lenses?
If you dont need redundant lenses for business reasons and if you sold off all of the crop only lenses and bought the 5D2 now, the 50/1.4 replaces the 30/1.4. The 10-20 is replaced by the 17-40. The 17-50 is redundant. You don't need both the 24-105 and 24-70 so sell one. Then buy the 135L and a 100 non L macro.
The sigma I have just seems a little hit and miss with the focus, sometime it hits OK and then other it miss and I need to depress the focus again to get it to lock on.
Your part right my collection is made up of lenses that are cheaper, then once I worked out what I was doing then the better glass got purchased, the only thing is I didn't sell of the older not so good once, so agree it looks a mess. Not really impulse just what I could afford at the time.
I also shot a vast range of thing I do this in my spare time for profit, I shot stock, events and the odd wedding so a large odd selection works for me.
The 24-70 sigma is going soon, I want to sell that for sure, it's not been used for over a year.
Cant afford the 5D just yet but I would keep my 50D anyway, doing wedding with two bodes is key for me.